thenexttodie wrote:You do not know how the solar system was formed. Nebular hypothesis has not be verified and the method of planetary accretion is unknown.

hackenslash wrote: The process is observed at all stages.

Oh now we have observed it all happening? Do you have a source for this? Because I think this would take millions of years of observation.

He said we have observed all stages, not observed one solar system going through all stages.

To make an analogy, try to imagine that a species lived for millions of years and that an infant growing up into an adult takes allot longer than you can live. In fact observing one individual throughout your life time, would not show much aging. However, you have many individuals that all are of different ages and that gives you the clue of how they age, even when you have never observed one individual going from infant to adult.

Apart from discovering other solar systems with their own planets (I mean hundreds in just a few decades) we also have observed protoplanetary disks with young stars, or in normal english. Just very young solar systems with a sun and a big dust cloud circling around it due to

GRAVITY YOU FUCKING RETARD!!! - with kind regards, desertphile

and thus is in the process that the nebular hypothesis proposes. Images from NASA, particular the Hubble space telescope.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

thenexttodie wrote:I think that when people see how your feelings led you to take a completely unrelated quote from me from a completely unrelated thread, most of them will rationalize this as evidence of your inability to think. Even your friends on this forum will secretly think this. How much marijuana do you smoke each day?

Nesslig20 wrote:To make an analogy, try to imagine that a species lived for millions of years and that an infant growing up into an adult takes allot longer than you can live. In fact observing one individual throughout your life time, would not show much aging. However, you have many individuals that all are of different ages and that gives you the clue of how they age, even when you have never observed one individual going from infant to adult.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Nesslig20 wrote:To make an analogy, try to imagine that a species lived for millions of years and that an infant growing up into an adult takes allot longer than you can live. In fact observing one individual throughout your life time, would not show much aging. However, you have many individuals that all are of different ages and that gives you the clue of how they age, even when you have never observed one individual going from infant to adult.

Use redwoods, no imagination need.

An adult biologist having the opportunity to observe the entire lifespan of a great tortoise can also be tricky.

None, I'm teetotal. Never been high, never been drunk. I do drink quite a bit of tea, though. Now, ad hominem aside, and given your consistent inability to grasp simple concepts or behave like someone who isn't a 13 year old, why should anyone here, or anywhere, take your opinion on stellar formation seriously?

First, what just happened witht the quotes in your above post? Looks like you messed them both up.

Second, your question about planetary formation:No. Why would they? There is no reason the dust cloud would have a totally even distribution of elements to begin with, but more importantly, once gravity starts working on the cloud - as the center becomes more dense - it's going to attract differently on the various elements, depending on their weight. And once the sun is "turned on", solar winds will do the same, just in the opposite direction.That's at least the basic knowledge I have on it, without looking into it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

First, what just happened witht the quotes in your above post? Looks like you messed them both up.

Second, your question about planetary formation:No. Why would they? There is no reason the dust cloud would have a totally even distribution of elements to begin with, but more importantly, once gravity starts working on the cloud - as the center becomes more dense - it's going to attract differently on the various elements, depending on their weight. And once the sun is "turned on", solar winds will do the same, just in the opposite direction.That's at least the basic knowledge I have on it, without looking into it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

(Mass, not weight. Sorry, picking nits. )

It really wouldn't be possible from my understanding to even have a totally even distribution of elements. If you think of a giant cloud in space, as a whole it's going to have a gravity which will be pulling unevenly on particles over varying distances. Plus any rotation in the cloud means you'll have particles moving faster and faster the closer you get to the center, and a particle moving even slightly faster than one a hair further away will catch up to it and allow their combine gravity to have an effect on each other, allowing clumping to begin.

First, what just happened witht the quotes in your above post? Looks like you messed them both up.

Second, your question about planetary formation:No. Why would they? There is no reason the dust cloud would have a totally even distribution of elements to begin with, but more importantly, once gravity starts working on the cloud - as the center becomes more dense - it's going to attract differently on the various elements, depending on their weight. And once the sun is "turned on", solar winds will do the same, just in the opposite direction.That's at least the basic knowledge I have on it, without looking into it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

(Mass, not weight. Sorry, picking nits. )

It really wouldn't be possible from my understanding to even have a totally even distribution of elements. If you think of a giant cloud in space, as a whole it's going to have a gravity which will be pulling unevenly on particles over varying distances. Plus any rotation in the cloud means you'll have particles moving faster and faster the closer you get to the center, and a particle moving even slightly faster than one a hair further away will catch up to it and allow their combine gravity to have an effect on each other, allowing clumping to begin.

perhaps the galaxy as a whole is homogenous our solar system is simply too small compared to the size of the whole, the sample is not statistically significant.

if you look at the whole forest in an airplane, you'll note that the forest looks more less the same in all directions, with more less the same amount of trees, animals, rocks etc. ......but if you look just an specific square inch, you will find a ratio of elements that is completely different form the ratio of the whole forest.

First, what just happened witht the quotes in your above post? Looks like you messed them both up.

Second, your question about planetary formation:No. Why would they? There is no reason the dust cloud would have a totally even distribution of elements to begin with, but more importantly, once gravity starts working on the cloud - as the center becomes more dense - it's going to attract differently on the various elements, depending on their weight. And once the sun is "turned on", solar winds will do the same, just in the opposite direction.That's at least the basic knowledge I have on it, without looking into it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

(Mass, not weight. Sorry, picking nits. )

Well yes, but you see... when dealing with creationists, you need to use more regular, every day terms instead of sciency terms. And the term "mass" will just confuse them even more, for obvious reasons.

leroy wrote:perhaps the galaxy as a whole is homogenous our solar system is simply too small compared to the size of the whole, the sample is not statistically significant.

if you look at the whole forest in an airplane, you'll note that the forest looks more less the same in all directions, with more less the same amount of trees, animals, rocks etc. ......but if you look just an specific square inch, you will find a ratio of elements that is completely different form the ratio of the whole forest.

Maybe that is the answer.

And maybe you're trying to over-philosophise and over-simplify a phenomenon that in all likelihood has perfectly regular, yet maybe fairly complicated, scientific explanations?

if we define dark matter as, a source of gravity that cant be observed there are at least 2 independent lines of evidence that prove the existence of dark matter

1 there is not enough regular matter for keep the galaxies spinning

2 gravitation lenses, we do see a distortion of space that is not caused by observed matter.

my hypothesis is that scientist will find out that dark matter is something simple, boring and stupid, people from the future will laugh at us, for believing that there is a deep and interesting secret related to dark matter.